I beg to move, "That Standing Order 99 ( General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills ) be repealed."

The object of the Motions which appear in my name on the Paper is to shorten and simplify in one particular the Standing Orders of this House relating to private Bills. At present Standing Order 99 provides that, at the beginning of every Session, there shall be appointed a Committee called the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, and in the ensuing Standing Orders one sole duty is put upon this Committee—to choose the Chairmen of Railway Bill Committees. This is really a survival of the great railway boom of last century, when an immense number of railway Bills came before the House, and it was necessary to devise some special machinery to deal with them. But at present the railway Bills form a very small proportion of the whole number of private Bills this Session, and there is no reason, in the view of the authorities of the House, why the Chairmen should not be appointed in the ordinary course by the Committees of Selection. It is, therefore, to get rid of unnecessary Standing Orders and unnecessary complication of machinery that these Motions have been put on the Paper. It is proposed to repeal five Standing Orders, and the other Amendments are purely consequential. I am not aware of any opposition or objection from any quarter.

I am quite certain that these proposed Amendments have been very carefully considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and by those whom he usually consults. There is a large number of Amendments, and I shall do all I can, as far as my influence is concerned, to assist these alterations going through, on the assumption that they are soundly based. I am sure that I am right in that assumption. But what I would suggest is that we should have an opportunity of reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT what my hon. Friend has said, and, if he will put them down another day, we shall have had time to see exactly what they mean.

I am quite ready to adjourn this matter till Wednesday or Thursday—

Any day will do.

Till Thursday, then. I do not know whether I should ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Objection taken. Thursday.

I suppose the hon. Gentleman has consulted the Members of the House who usually sit as Chairmen of these private Bills?

I understand that all these gentlemen have been consulted, but I will make absolutely certain before Thursday. May I ask whether, as this has been objected to now, it will necessitate the Motion being taken as opposed Business?

No.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding Upper Silesia; whether a meeting of the Supreme Council has been fixed; and, if so, when?

I am very happy to be able to inform the House that we have reached a satisfactory arrangement with the French Government for the meeting of the Supreme Council, to consider the position of Upper Silesia.

The Supreme Council will meet in Paris on the 8th instant, to adjudicate on the results of the Upper Silesian Plebiscite and the reports of the Plebiscite Commission. The first item on its agenda will be to decide whether, pending the announcement of its adjudication on the Plebiscite issue, reinforcements are, or are not, needed in the Plebiscite area.

In the meantime, the British, French, and Italian Ambassadors at Berlin are jointly informing the German Government that Germany must be prepared to facilitate the transport of Allied forces across Germany, at any moment when the Supreme Council decides that the situation in Upper Silesia may render this necessary.

I may add that throughout the recent discussions with France, His Majesty's Government have been guided solely by the desire to secure a just solution of the Upper Silesian issue, in accordance with the results of the Plebiscite and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

The British, French, and Italian experts met in Paris last week to examine; the lines of settlement.

Can we be assured that the German Government will get a straight deal from His Majesty's Government in this matter?

Is it anticipated that the report of the Commission of Experts will be ready by 8th August?

Yes, I think so. In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I have to say it is the business of the British Government to see that both the Poles and the Germans get a perfectly straight deal.

Will the occasion be taken to discuss the trials of the War criminals?

I believe that is one of the subjects which will be discussed by the Council.

Will it be possible to have the question of Vilna discussed by the Council?

That is in the hands of the League of Nations.

May I ask what business it is proposed to take to-night, and whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Licensing (No. 2) Bill to-morrow?

Yes, Sir. As the House knows, I propose to take the Licensing (No. 2) Bill to-morrow in consequence of the enormously influential representations which have reached me from various quarters of the House that it is wished to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible, and send it up to the other House.

As regards to-night, there are two private Bills coming on which I do not think will take very long, but they may occupy some time, and, in the circumstances, after 11 o'clock, I propose to take only the Territorial Army and Militia Bill—the Third Reading stage—to which I think there is no objection.

SUPREME COURT OFFICERS (RETIREMENT, PENSIONS, &c.) BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to the appointment, conditions of service, and pensions of certain officers of the Supreme Court in England, and to authorise the abolition of certain offices therein, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Sir Gordon Hewart and Sir John Baird; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Stoke-On-Trent Extension) Bill

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "thirtieth day of June," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."

This Clause provides for the preparation and approval of absorption schemes. As it stands, these schemes are to be submitted by the 30th June, 1923, but inasmuch as in the corresponding Clause dealing with amalgamation schemes the date has been advanced six months, it is, we think, necessary to make this Amendment to bring Clause 4 in unison with Clause 2.

This knocks off six months from the period given to the constituent companies to bring forward schemes for absorption, and I think the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman is insufficient. I do not see why Clause 4 should necessarily be altered to read in unison with Clause 2. The Committee upstairs was generally of opinion that as much time as possible should be given to the consideration of these schemes of amalgamation, which are very complicated and very important to the future of trade. I can see no reason for this curtailment of the period by six months.

Amendment agreed to.

Of the next four Amendments on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott), the first—in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Minister" ["submit to the Minister a scheme"], and to insert the word "Board"—is, of course, gone. Does the hon. Member desire to move the next one?

Yes, Sir. I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Minister" ["submit to the Minister a scheme"], and to insert instead thereof the words "amalgamation tribunal."

As you, Sir, have pointed out, the first of the Amendments standing in my name goes automatically as the result of what happened last week, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that, if the Amendment which I am now moving be agreed to, I can, if allowed to do so, move my next Amendment—in Sub-section (2), to leave cut "Minister" and insert "Board"—in a slightly different form. The purpose of the present Amendment is to simplify one of the many complexities, to untie one of the many coils, which are to be found in the many Clauses of the Bill. Under this Bill, as the House knows, the railways of the United Kingdom will have to deal in the future, firstly with the Ministry of Transport, secondly with the amalgamation tribunal, thirdly with the Bates Tribunal, fourthly with the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and fifthly with the Board of Trade. On almost every question which can arise in regard to the administration of a railway company, matters will have to go backwards and forwards, or forwards and backwards, from the company to the Minister and from the Minister to one of these other tribunals. The effect of this Amendment would be to make the Clause read:

I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment As I explained a few minutes since, Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill are really complementary one to the other. Clause 2 deals with the preparation and settlement of amalgamation schemes, and it provides that where a scheme is agreed to by the companies they may present it to the Minister, whose duty it shall be to refer it to the amalgamation tribunal, who then will simply inquire as to whether it complies with the requirements of the Statute. Clause 4, which we are now discussing, prescribes exactly the same machinery and methods for dealing with absorption schemes, the difference between the two being this, that the constituent companies—the larger companies—will in the first instance propound a scheme for their own amalgamation, and they may, either at the same time or later, propound a scheme or schemes for absorption of the smaller companies. In both cases it is provided that the agreed scheme shall be submitted to the Minister, whose duty is simply ministerial and administrative. He has to send it to the amalgamation tribunal, as set out in Subsection (2), which says:

"The Minister shall refer to the amalgamation tribunal any scheme so submitted to him."

Read on!

May I pause for a moment? The object is that the Minister shall be informed—and I would submit that he ought to be informed if he is to be responsible in any sort of way for answering questions in Parliament on these matters—of the schemes which are submitted.

Supposing there were not a Minister?

Sub-section (2) says:

"The Minister shall refer to the amalgamation tribunal any scheme so submitted to him, and the tribunal, unless it appears to them that the scheme does not conform with the requirements of this Act, or that the provisions of this Act relating to the procedure preliminary to the submission of an agreed scheme have not been complied with, shall confirm the scheme."

The powers of the tribunal are not, strictly speaking, raised under the present Amendment. The Minister is to have notice of the schemes and pass them on to the tribunal, and, if this Amendment were to be made here, its effect would be that that notice would be imperative in Clause 2 and not in Clause 4. It would throw the Bill somewhat out of line, and would deprive the Minister of knowledge with respect to absorption schemes. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that the Amendment is not one which should be accepted.

The hon. Gentleman has given two reasons for not accepting this Amendment. The first is that some foolish thing has been done in Clause 2, with which I shall deal presently; and the second is that the Minister will not be able to answer questions in Parliament if the Amendment is carried. I should like to say, firstly, that it is the earnest wish of a great many of us that after the passing of this Measure there should be no Minister of Transport, and, therefore, if there is not to be a Minister, there is no necessity for making provisions to enable him to answer questions in Parliament. Secondly, we desire to effect economies. What is going to take place if my hon. Friend's Amendment is not carried? If, say, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) and his group submit a scheme for amalgamation, they have to submit that scheme to the Minister. The Minister has no power; under the Bill he has to submit the scheme, when he has received it, to the amalgamation tribunal. What better way could there be of giving work to people who need not be employed in the Ministry of Transport than by sending to them something which they have to send on to someone else? It is the method of the Government Department. Jones has to refer something to Smith, and so, instead of referring it to Smith direct, he sends it through someone else, and it goes through these various channels before it gets to the right official.

If my hon. Friend's Amendment be not carried, the amalgamation scheme will be sent to the Ministry of Transport. Official A will open the letter. He will then send it to official B, who will then send it back to official A in order that notes may be made on the margin. Then it will be sent to official C, and, after it has gone through a number of Departments, who have added notes on the margin giving their opinion of the particular scheme—although, be it remembered, they will have no word to say as to whether or not the scheme should be carried out—it will be referred to the amalgamation tribunal, who are the people who will have the power to say whether or not the scheme is to be carried out. My hon. Friend, who is an apostle of economy, desires to avoid all that circumlocution, and to send it straight to the people who have to deal with it. I understood that this Bill was going to effect economies, but I do not see where they are going to be. They certainly will not be in the Ministry of Transport. Any ordinary person would say at once, "We have made a mistake. The proper course is to submit the scheme to the people who have to decide it, and therefore we will accept the Amendment." The Parliamentary Secretary says it would alter Clause 2. Suppose that it does. What does that matter? Why not alter Clause 2 in another place? Surely that cannot be an argument, that because a mistake is made in Clause 2 which is going to cause the maintenance of unnecessary officials we are not to rectify that mistake later on. Fortunately there is still another place where mistakes of this kind can be rectified. I only trust that on consideration the Government will accept the Amendment. If they will not, I hope my hon Friend will go to a Division in order to show how fallacious are all these statements of the Government's desire for economy when they do their best to bring in unnecessary officials and create work for them.

I am particularly anxious to say a word, in view of the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said it is necessary that these absorption schemes shall pass, on their way to the Amalgamation Tribunal, who will deal with them, through the Ministry, in order that the Ministry may answer questions. I deplore that most profoundly. If these schemes are made the subject, day after day, of question and answer in Parliament we shall never get an honest straightforward amalgamation or absorption scheme through. The whole point of this Bill is to put the Amalgamation Tribunal into an absolutely judicial capacity and give it purely judicial functions. If they are going to have, when a scheme is submitted, questions in Parliament by all the various people representing the railway companies or different localities the whole work of the Amalgamation Tribunal will be vitiated. The one good point all through about this Bill is that directly it is through we shall no longer need a Minister of Transport, and the sooner we get rid of the Ministry and all its works the better for the House, the country, and the taxpayer. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in order that, if we cannot do anything in this place, it will give a lead to another place to put right both this Clause and Clause 2.

I hope, unless there is some real reason against the Amendment, the Minister of Transport will accept it. When a scheme has been prepared, whether it has to go before that body or not to be confirmed, it should be placed before them as soon as possible. I have heard no reason why it should first go to the Ministry and then be passed on to the tribunal. I cannot see the advantage, either from the point of view of expedition or of economy, in going through this process. The only reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary for retaining the Clause in its present form is that Clause 2, which deals with other schemes, is in the same form. But if we now accept this Amendment it will be perfectly easy to put Clause 2 right in another place. I appeal to the Minister of Transport, unless there is some serious reason which we have not yet had, to accept the Amendment.

I cannot see why the Minister will not accept the Amendment. It seems the only reason was that put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, which was rightly condemned by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, that it will be possible to ask questions in the House about these schemes. Surely the Government themselves on Clause 2 opposed Sub-section (5) under which schemes were only to be approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Why did the Government do that? If they wish to remove these schemes outside Parliamentary control altogether, if that were a commendable thing to do in respect of schemes of amalgamated companies, it is equally commendable in this case, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

I do not think this is really a matter of great importance or one over which the House would wish to spend very much time. It does not matter whether you have the Minister of Transport or whether it is done by any other Minister. Whichever Ministry is doing it—and this is not a thing which will last for all time—that Minister ought to have knowledge of these amalgamations. It does not matter whether you pass the scheme through the Minister or have a copy submitted to him direct or by the tribunal. It seems to me it is quite a convenient process to send it through the Minister. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has told us how these things are dealt with in the Departments. That is not what would happen. It is desirable that the Ministry—whichever Ministry it is—should know how this process of amalgamation and absorption is going. It is nonsense to put it on the ground of cost. It ought to get to the tribunal as soon as possible. It is in the interest of the public that these amalgamations should be carried through as quickly as possible, that extension should not be given to the time without some control by Parliament and Parliament having some knowledge of them. We have passed the same provision in connection with amalgamation schemes, and I think we shall really waste more time by talking over the reversal of our previous decision than the whole thing is worth. It is a matter of quite minor importance, and perhaps my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. If he does I will ask the House to be consistent with what we have done.

The Amendment has not been seconded.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Clause gives some idea that the Minister will have some control of the tribunals. He may or may not have, but that is the impression you get from the procedure laid down. It seems to me if there is such a feature in the Bill, and the Ministry have any form of control, the House ought to know it. If they have none, it is perfectly easy for the tribunal to report to the Ministry which is looking after the affairs of that transport at any time it is necessary. That will be an economy of time and money, and I hope my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division.

At the end of Clause 2 there is a very important provision attached to the formation of an amalgamated scheme. The last Subsection says—

That has been taken out.

I admit these two Amendments ought to have been moved on Clause 2. I had down on Clause 1 an Amendment which, if it had been carried, would have taken the Ministry of Transport entirely out of the Bill. Therefore it was not necessary for me to put down these subsequent Amendments, of which this was one. This Amendment has only been put down since the first and second Clauses were passed with the Ministry of Transport already in them. I put down the Amendment on the first opportunity I had, and this is the first opportunity the House has had, as far as I know, of discussing the position of the Ministry of Transport in relation to the Bill. What is the main reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary against the Amendment. That was going to be reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig).

My point was that some sort of control should be kept by Parliament.

My hon. Friend's desire was warmly shared by many hon. Members, but that particular Sub-section has been taken out by the Government, and it is not a matter for Parliament at all. The Amalgamation Tribunal, under the provisions of this Bill, is the final tribunal to decide the question of amal- gamation under Clause 2, and the question of absorption under Clause 4. The House ought to give an affirmative decision in this matter in order to bring to the notice of another place the very important provision in this respect. I do not wish to delay the progress of the Bill, as there are many important Amendments yet to be taken; therefore I will only

4.0 P.M.

I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two" and to insert instead thereof the words "at any time after the passing of this Act."

express the hope that the House will, by accepting this Amendment, strike a firm and not ineffective blow for simplicity of procedure and economy in administration.

Question put, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 21.

This Sub-section provides that a constituent company may submit a preliminary scheme for the absorption of any subsidiary company. The date, 30th June, 1922, before which they could not make submission was put in because, as the Bill was drawn, there was a proviso to Clause I which prevented the amalgamation taking final form before 30th June, 1922. That proviso has been omitted from the Bill, and it is therefore unnecessary to have this date here.

As this is practically the same as my Amendment which follows, I congratulate the Government on having brought in a sensible Amendment, and I shall support it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions to be contained in absorption schemes.)

(1) An absorption scheme under this Act—

( c ) shall provide for the winding up of the subsidiary company or companies, and may provide on any such winding up for the holder of any securities of the subsidiary company receiving in substitution therefor and in satisfaction of all claims arising thereunder securities of the amalgamated company forming part of the consideration for the transfer of the undertaking; and

( d ) shall incorporate the provisions of Part V of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, subject, to the provisions of this Act; and

( e ) shall incorporate the provisions contained in the Third Schedule to this Act with respect to existing officers and servants; and

( f ) may make such incidental and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient in order to give full effect to the provisions of the scheme and the purposes of this Act.

I beg to move, in Paragraph ( c ), after the word "undertaking," to insert the words

"and may with the consent of the proprietors provide for the payment of compensation out of the assets of a subsidiary company to the directors of the company who suffer loss by abolition of office."

This Amendment provides that directors of subsidiary companies who lose their jobs on absorption may receive compensation from the subsidiary company if the shareholders so desire that they shall receive it. The House will remember that on Wednesday a provision was inserted allowing the shareholders of constituent companies, if they thought it right, to pay compensation to directors who on amalgamation became superfluous. My Amendment proposes to do the same thing for the directors of subsidiary companies. All the arguments for compensating directors of the larger consti- tuent companies apply with double force in the case of the directors of the smaller subsidiary companies. These smaller directors are often not highly paid. They are paid a sum, £1 1s. or £2 2s., for attendance, and yet they have given devoted service to their companies for many years. Since the House has decided that their more fortunate brethren may be compensated, perhaps it will extend the same possibility to these directors. I should point out that the whole question is left to the shareholders to say whether or no compensation is to be paid. Secondly, the compensation comes out of the assets of the subsidiary companies themselves. It is not charged on the group, and therefore can in no sense be charged on the trade of the companies. Thirdly, all the officers and servants of the company, from the general manager to the platelayer, who lose their positions are under the Third Schedule to receive compensation. My last argument is that in the Bill as submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) for the nationalisation of railways a provision was inserted for the compensation of directors.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The principle was determined the other night, and the views which I then expressed are applicable to this Amendment. I want, however, to see how it may be interpreted. Take a subsidiary company in respect of which a scheme has been already agreed. It is generally recognised what companies are to be absorbed in any group, and those directors, therefore, are from this moment redundant. Take, on the other hand, the position of the platelayers or any of the servants. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that you want to keep clearly in mind that they also must be compensated, and, so far as the Third Schedule is concerned, that is intended. I want it to be interpreted in the same way in both cases. Before the scheme of absorption takes place a general manager may determine that a number of people are redundant, but they do not get compensation until it is shown that the redundancy is the result of amalgamation. I want to see whether it is possible to get fair dealing. No general manager would be worthy of his job if he did not know in advance that amalgamation was to take place. He says, "Under amalgamation I shall not want A, B, and C, so I can dispense with their services." Strictly speaking, those men could not claim compensation, because the redundancy would not arise until after the amalgamation. That is the unfairness of it. I want justice done to the director and also to the platelayer. This Clause will give compensation to the director who, at the same time, would be equally as redundant as the platelayer. Therefore, I am going to vote for the Clause, and I hope it will be carried, because I am quite sure that those who are going to benefit by it will not take a privilege to themselves that they deny to someone else.

Some years ago I happened to be a member of the committee presided over by Mr. Russell Rea to inquire into the railway amalgamations and agreements, and, representing the Labour party in those days, I was particularly interested as to how the railway worker would be circumstanced as the result of any amalgamation or agreement that was entered into between the railway companies. Ultimately, by mutual agreement, we established the principle that no railway worker should suffer as the result of an amalgamation or an agreement between the respective companies, and we felt that the railway companies would not be involved in very heavy liabilities, because the natural wastage which takes place would very soon compensate them under this head. I faithfully sought in those days to represent the Labour party. We established our point, and I think that constitutes the basis of the Third Schedule of this Bill. I am not claiming any particular credit for it. I was simply carrying out my duties in a representative capacity. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that the principle we desire to see established in respect of the railway worker must also be applied to other grades and even to the directors in the event of circumstances occurring over which they have no immediate control. I recognise the point to which my right hon. Friend directed the attention of the House the other day, and I think he was perfectly sound. I know it is popular to oppose anything which is calculated to bring benefit to other classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my experience in this House. At any rate, it gives rise to a certain amount of suspicion if one supports anything which is calculated to benefit other classes. I will not put it any higher.

If the principle which we established the other day were perfectly sound the point which we have to consider to-day is even much stronger, because we are now dealing with subsidiary companies. I have been giving some consideration to the position of these minor companies during the past few weeks, and we have to recognise that the railways of this country were not built up on a large plan. They are mainly the result of individual enterprise, and one of the things which I fear as the result of this Bill is that the enterprise of localities may be stifled. That, however, is not a point to be argued on this occasion. The case of the directors of the subsidiary companies is even stronger than that which we determined the other day, because in the main the directors of the smaller companies are men who have had a realisation of the necessities of the localities and who have invested their own money in these local enterprises, not merely with a desire to secure dividends, but chiefly to cater for the needs of the localities in which they reside. Therefore I want to support with as much fervour as I can the principle—I am not so much concerned with the individual—that if, as the result of Parliamentary intervention, men are deprived of emoluments, the result of their own individual efforts or the investment of their own private resources, they shall be entitled to compensation.

I hope the House will come to a decision on this Amendment. We left it, in the larger issue, to the free vote of the House, and it was carried by a very large majority. The case for this Amendment is at any rate as strong as it was in the case which we have already decided. The money cannot come out of public funds, and I cannot see that it can indirectly come out of the pockets of the public, because it is provided that the compensation shall be paid out of the assets of the company and not be part of the working expenses. Moreover, it is only on the vote of the shareholders that it can be paid, and it is only permissive. I venture, therefore, to ask the House to let us take a decision and get to matters which are really of more importance.

There are two sides to this question. So far only one side of the case has been put to the House. There is a big principle involved here. You are establishing dangerous precedents for the compensation of vested interests when the public weal demands a change in policy. Certain comparisons have been made between a platelayer and a director. Both, undoubtedly, yield good service to the community in their respective spheres, but the analogy is not sound. The platelayer is getting compensation, and rightly so, and so are the general manager and those higher officials, because they have had their livelihood taken away in the public interest. When you are dealing with a railway director you are dealing with a man whose livelihood is not dependent, in the great majority of cases, upon the fees which he gets as a director. This is a very vital difference. Moreover, a director is appointed for one, two or three years. How he can get a vested interest in the unexpired time which may have to elapse before those services come automatically to an end under this Bill, I fail to see. I protest against what is nothing more or less than a compensation of vested interests. I submit that there is no comparison between the position of a man whose livelihood is taken away and that of a director who has only two or three years to run. In the bulk of their cases their time would expire before this Act would come into full fruition. You might give those whose time is unexpired their fees for the remainder of the unexpired period, but an Amendment of this sort is contrary to public policy, and I hope that the House will not accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to determination of terms and conditions of amalgamation or transfer.)

For the purpose of determining the terms and conditions of amalgamation between any constituent companies or of the transfer of the undertaking of any subsidiary company, the Amalgamation Tribunal shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and in particular the value on a net revenue earning basis of each of the constituent and subsidiary companies as a separate company, and its value as a component part of the amalgamated company:

Provided that in the case of the line of one company being worked by another company under an arrangement whereby a percentage of the gross receipts of the line so worked are payable to the owning company, the amalgamation tribunal in determining the terms and conditions of transfer shall not take into account any higher charging powers than those authorised in respect of the line under the statutory provisions in force in the year nineteen hundred and thirteen.

I beg to move to leave out the words

"all the circumstances of the case, and in particular the value on a net revenue earning basis of each of the constituent and subsidiary companies as a separate company, and its value as a component part of the amalgamated company:

Provided that in the case of the line of one company being worked by another company under an arrangement whereby a percentage of the gross receipts of the line so worked are payable to the owning company, the Amalgamation Tribunal in determining the terms and conditions of transfer shall not take into account any higher charging powers than those authorised in respect of the line under the statutory provisions in force in the year nineteen hundred and thirteen,"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"the capital value of the companies concerned as calculated from the Stock Exchange values as on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."

This Amendment will be of great importance later on, if accepted, when we come to the question of laying down the rules on which the rates will be fixed. It is an attempt to correct the principle of the Bill which takes a good year, 1913, and prescribes that the returns of values, etc., for that year shall continue to hold. The true value of a thing, we are continually told, is what it will fetch. Therefore the true value of railway stock is what it will fetch in the market on a given date. The value taken in this Amendment is the Stock Exchange value on the 30th day of June, 1921. I think that that is a perfectly fair value to take. This Bill is the offspring of a marriage between two special interests, one that of the railway directors and shareholders, what I may call the railway interest, and the other—I do not wish to give any offence, because they are quite right to guard their position—that representing organised labour on the railways. As they could not get the nationalisation which they advocated they have quite properly fought for certain compensations for their members in reference to disputes, wages boards, etc., and they are supporting the Government broadly on this Bill. On the other hand, you have the great railway interests who have fought for certain compensa- tions, certain money values, and have got them. The Minister of Transport has had the support of another class represented by the Scottish railway companies. The general public is really being squeezed, and we are now being asked to approve of an attempt to overvalue the railways.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would make it clear to the House how the general public are being squeezed.

I hoped that I had made that quite clear. I consider that they are being squeezed in this way. Under the Rating Clauses the rates will be fixed—

On a point of Order. The Clause says

"For the purposes of determining the terms and conditions of amalgamation between any constituent companies, or of the transfer of the undertaking of any subsidiary company the Amalgamation Tribunal shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and particularly the value on a net revenue-earning basis," etc.

If two companies are to be amalgamated, the percentage of the earnings which is to be given to each of the companies is to be taken upon the value of the company as a revenue-earning concern. What has the question of Stock Exchange values got to do with that? It would make the Clause nonsense. If the Clause were setting forth that the Government should purchase the railways that would be another thing, but that is not in the Clause.

I am prepared to argue otherwise.

The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is, I take it, that this Clause deals only with the terms as between constituent companies, and I think that point is a sound one. The words of this Amendment would not read into the Bill. Some other direction would certainly be required, and that being so, I must pass to the next Amendment.

May I draw attention to the fact that the question of capital value may be of great importance later on on Clauses 57 and 58, and the question of the capital value of the railways comes in then with regard to the fixing of rates, and if in the future the question of State purchase of rail- ways comes up the value of the transferred companies will be of great importance.

Then this Amendment has been put down to guard the future position?